[herbie]

$1:

I would like to see a proper mincome system that eliminates poverty while not reducing the motivation to work, even at shitty jobs. To start with we could raise the basic tax exemption to 20k, then tax the lost revenue back at the upper end.

So does every sane person, but that's too damn sensible!
You're still asserting things not provable. Don't you grasp EI benefits would be cut significantly and welfare eliminated entirely? And seniors only get $550 odd plus any CPP. I'm retired and the package I chose reduces by that amount when I hit 65 and the OAS kicks in.
Plus you're sticking with this motivation myth - yes there will always be some slackassers and this isn't a plan to get rid of or punish those people. But I'll give you examples
How many retired RCMP officers you know that aren't working? Half the Telus guys I know are double dipping or working for another outfit.
Even I still work doing tech shit on the side, my pension isn't big enough to spend travelling 100% - that's a bloody dream stereotype and most of the people who do that die within a few years.

[sandorski]

andyt andyt:

Raising wages for everybody almost 50% overnight would cause huge inflation, that's a fact. 1500 per month to every adult would still be 517 billion. In 2015-16, the govt only expected to take in 290 billion total in revenues.

If the system is just ramping up welfare rates, as Sandorski says, that's not going to do much either. You'd have to keep EI, or are you going to force working people laid off to just get welfare? Seniors get more than the figure Sandorski suggests, so you'd need a top up system for them too.

I would like to see a proper mincome system that eliminates poverty while not reducing the motivation to work, even at shitty jobs. To start with we could raise the basic tax exemption to 20k, then tax the lost revenue back at the upper end.

A big benefit to this type of system is that if someone does lose their Job, they still have the Mincome. They have no need to apply or deal with a bureaucracy. EI and even CPP payouts/payins can also be lowered. It would dramatically change the current systems in place.

[andyt]

IT would cost a fortune, as I've laid out. You either still have EI and bureaucracy, or have to make the mincome high enough to match max EI now. No CPP payins means no investment of the payins as is current - CPP is self funding. And again, if you're only reducing, not eliminating CPP system, you still have the same bureaucracy. So either the mincome is a serious amount of cash, which as I've shown would take a fortune, 3x as much revenue per year as Canada currently takes in, or you're just farking about, retaining all the bureaucracies but with lower pay ins and outs. OAS is paid out at max to people earning up to 70k a year, and doesn't dissappear until 100k+. Those people would scream bloody murder if all of a sudden they didn't get their little OAS payment anymore.

[sandorski]

andyt andyt:

IT would cost a fortune, as I've laid out. You either still have EI and bureaucracy, or have to make the mincome high enough to match max EI now. No CPP payins means no investment of the payins as is current - CPP is self funding. And again, if you're only reducing, not eliminating CPP system, you still have the same bureaucracy. So either the mincome is a serious amount of cash, which as I've shown would take a fortune, 3x as much revenue per year as Canada currently takes in, or you're just farking about, retaining all the bureaucracies but with lower pay ins and outs. OAS is paid out at max to people earning up to 70k a year, and doesn't dissappear until 100k+. Those people would scream bloody murder if all of a sudden they didn't get their little OAS payment anymore.

I think it's Denmark that is close to implementing such a scheme. Whoever it is, it will be worth watching to see how they do it and how it affects things.

[Vamp018]

stratos stratos:

$1:

I think what' s most interesting would see how the market responds. I think you'll see a who new range of low-end goods and services - like housing - priced at the minimum income.

Not sure I follow the logic here. Why would this plan cause more housing and other services to be cheaper? More likely, IMO, the people who receive this will see their rent and what not go UP because the land lords and or the company owning the apartments will figure they can pay more.

Bingo and also Local and County Goverments would inflate Property Value's to jack the Tax up, thus up goes Rent. Heck even utilities will go up with more Fee's and Surcharges. Thus Rent a Apartment and get no value added you pay everything including Rent and your Paying out more then 2/3rds of your total monthly earnings and going nowhere.

But may I caution all, this scheme might work, but NOT!! in the USA. The US has way too many in the population dept. However Canada might and I stress might, Denmark although has less population then Canada and thus they love taxing up the Rear end and tossing money down the hole, no returns. But they can do it and have a smaller population, thus less cost then the US and or Canada.

[sandorski]

Vamp018 Vamp018:

stratos stratos:

$1:

I think what' s most interesting would see how the market responds. I think you'll see a who new range of low-end goods and services - like housing - priced at the minimum income.

Not sure I follow the logic here. Why would this plan cause more housing and other services to be cheaper? More likely, IMO, the people who receive this will see their rent and what not go UP because the land lords and or the company owning the apartments will figure they can pay more.

Bingo and also Local and County Goverments would inflate Property Value's to jack the Tax up, thus up goes Rent. Heck even utilities will go up with more Fee's and Surcharges. Thus Rent a Apartment and get no value added you pay everything including Rent and your Paying out more then 2/3rds of your total monthly earnings and going nowhere.

But may I caution all, this scheme might work, but NOT!! in the USA. The US has way too many in the population dept. However Canada might and I stress might, Denmark although has less population then Canada and thus they love taxing up the Rear end and tossing money down the hole, no returns. But they can do it and have a smaller population, thus less cost then the US and or Canada.

This is a common yet silly argument. Such a system will likely work better with higher populations, simply because it spreads Costs out to more people.

There may be reasons why it wouldn't work in the US, but Population size is not one of them. It seems to be the first reason anyone against some new way of doing things in the US trots out.

[Canadian_Mind]

I think what's more important than total population is ratio of population that provides income to the government to those who do not provide income to the government.

If not enough people can give the tax man what he needs to provide the basic income, the income wont work. Andy already did the math for us and at our ratio taxes would have to go way up.

As it is right now, I'm a mid income earner. I make enough that I was able to buy a house, own a single vehicle, put a couple hundred towards personal recreation every month, and am able to put a small amount of money aside every month to help bolster the retirement/modified pickup fund. I'm definitely not +1000 every month. Even if i also received the income, i would have to pay so much in taxes that i wouldn't be able to afford my lifestyle anymore. Why should I have to give up all my personal recreation and possibly the title to my home so that I'd end up with little more than the people who don't work and rely on this income? Effectively I'm a slave to them in that they are profiting from my labour.

I'm all for helping people out, but there are limits. If Andy's numbers are right, I think we've well since crossed our limit.

Not christian by any means, but i think the give a man a fish or teach him to fish analogy applies. Instead of giving everybody money, lets focus on making jobs.

[herbie]

Andy's pointed out a huge amount of money, but you're defining it as a "cost". As there are no details of how it would work (taxes, etc) you can't define a cost.
All you can point out is that a huge amount of money will move, and economies are defined by money in movement. So it would expand the economy.
How much of that movement would be picked off by the GST-PST-HST? Tons more. The income tax changes would need to be finessed, taking this deep seated fear of 'disincentive to work' everyone seems to have into account.
Not saying a guaranteed income is easy or right, I'm just refusing to dismiss it out of simple knee-jerk reactions as it offends my Protestant work ethics.

[Jabberwalker]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

New mothers are losers?

Single mothers with no income who are going to be dependent upon the state are losers, you're damn right they are.

[quote=] Bart to battered wives: Should've stuck with your husband and learned to take a punch, you losers!
Bart to widows: Should've married someone healthier, you losers!
Bart to abandoned women: Shouldn't have let your husbands run off with younger women, you losers!
Bart to professional women: Should've handed your baby over to a stranger and got back to work you losers![/quote]


That's called "Christianity in action" down there.